As pressure builds on Israel to accept the Arab version of "The Two State Solution" peace plan, it's important to strip away the lies and illusions being spun by the wordl community and point out the fatal flaws with such an idea.
First, let's deal with a very basic assumption, that Yehuda, Shomron and 'Aza are "occupied territories". Joseph Goebells, y"sh, the Nazi minister of propaganda, will always be remembered for creating the doctrine of "the Big Lie". He realized that if you tell a lie often enough and with sufficient conviction, it will eventually become accepted as the truth.
In the case of Israel, this idea has been used with incredibly good effect. Most people who lack a decent knowledge of Middle East history, or worse, academics who think they have such a knowledge, have come to accept that Yehuda, Shomron and 'Aza are territories illegally mililtarily occupied by Israel.
This, of course, is a lie. Before 1947 the entire area that is Israel plus the "occupied territories" was the British Mandate and that mandate was to create a Jewish National Home in Israel, as per the 1917 Balfour declaration. The British, having violated the terms of that mandate by giving away 75% of that land to their World War I allies in Jordan, consistently attempted to destroy any attempts to create the Jewish National Home in order to gain allies in the Arab world. Despite this, they were forced to abandon Israel when the stubborn Jews in Israel refused to be pushed away and the situation became virtually ungovernable. As a result, the Mandate was handed to the United Nations which voted, in 1947, to partition the land into two countries, Israel and Palestine.
Immediately after the vote, the Arab leadership in Israel refused to accept the results. They announced that they wanted all of Israel for themselves, the Jews be damned, and they began attacking Jews all across the country. In 1948, when Israel declared its independence, the armies of six Arab states, none of whom had anything directly at stake in the creation of the new country, attacked as well. By 1949, just as the Jews were gaining momentum and it looked like they might conquer all the territory west of the Jordan River, the UN stepped in and forced an armistice. The Jews were left with what today is call pre-1967 Israel. The Arabs were left with Yehuda, Shomron and 'Aza.
Only it wasn't the local Arabs that were in charge of those areas. Jordan controlled Yehuda and Shomron while Egypt occupied 'Aza. What Jew haters like to forget is that during the period 1949-1967 these two countries ruled Yehuda, Shomron and 'Aza as military conquests. There was no talk about local autonomy, "Palestinian" self-rule, etc. Pre-1967 Israel was "occupied Palestine" and the target of Arab attacks.
What people also forget is that, aside from Britian and Pakistan, no nation recognized Jordan and Egypt's occupation of Israeli land. At the time, these territories were considered "disputed" or unowned. They were certainly not considered the so-called Palestinian homeland.
It was only when Israel, with the help of God, won the Six Day War and finally regained all the land promised it by the British Mandate, that suddenly the story changed. Instead of being disputed, Yehuda, Shomron and 'Aza were now occuped "Palestinian" territory. The big lie had begun.
And it continues until this day. There was never an independent country called Palestine. Until the PLO invented it, there was never a Palestinian flag. There has never been a Palestinian currency or even postage stamps, nothing in history to give any evidence that a country called Palestine existed and that its people were suddenly deprived of their independence. But by repeating the word "occupied Palestinian territory" the impression has been given that there was and that it was the Israelis who stole it.
Thus Israel is not an occupying power. It is the Arabs who are lying (successfully) in their goal of eradicating the Jewish state.
Now, let's move on to why supporting the two-state resolution makes one a racist. What is the goal of the two state solution? To create the following two countries:
a) Palestine - a state in Yehuda, Shomron, and 'Aza. This state will be exclusively Arab in nature. Jews will be forbidden to live or own property there. Other than Neturei Karta'niks, they will also probably be forbidden entry. This state will proudly call itself Muslim, much to the chagrin of the ever-shrinking Chrisian population, but who cares about them?
b) Israel - the pre-1967 version but with important differences. Part of the two-state solution is implementing the so-called Right of Return. As the story goes, it involves 4.5 million "Palestinians" whose parents and grandparents were driven out of Israel by the Jews in 1949. In fact, it will be a slum-clearing exercise by all the local Arab states as they send 4.5 million of their least desirable citizens to Israel to live. This sudden influx, accompanied by the sudden eviction of 500 000 Jews from their homes in Yehudah and Shomron will cause two things. One is the economic collapse of Israel. The second will be to create an Arab majority which will then decide to jettison all things Jewish about the state, as well as to officially designate the remaining Jews (those who haven't fled, presumably) to permanent second class status.
In other word, Israel will not be a Jewish state, even though the solution demands the creation of a Muslim one. It won't even be a bi-national state for very long. Ultimately it will become another failed Arab state with a sizeable persecuted Jewish minority.
In the 1980's it was a cause celebre for Western liberals to demand the end of apartheid in South Africa. I wonder how many of these self-designated anti-racists are worried that in supporting the two state solution they are supporting the creation of two race-based states?
Navonim - The Ramblings of Garnel Ironheart
BUY THIS BOOK! Now available on Amazon! IT WILL MAKE YOUR LIFE COMPLETE!
Thursday, 11 June 2009
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Adding That Will Lead to Subtracting
There is a famous midrash about how Chavah wound up succumbing to the temptation of the nachash in Gan Eden. While God initially commanded Adam not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Chavah, in her presentation of the command to the nachash, added an extra feature to the law: touching it was also forbidden. As a result, Chazal tell us that the snake pushed her into the tree and said "See? Just as you didn't die when you touched it, so you won't die when you eat its fruit!" The rest is the history of mankind.
Perhaps this is why, despite the plethora of rabbinic enactments and gezeiros that have formed around the basic Torah since it was given to Moshe Rabeinu, a"h, we are still very careful when studying the mitzvos to define which is d'oraisa and which is d'rabannon. While the latter are binding on us, we must clearly remember their position in the legal order of things. For example, the famous rule of avoiding a shvus d'shvus (yes, I know there are exceptions!). Otherwise one can come to create laws that eventually conceal any intent the Torah itself might originally have had. (Chumrah-of-the-week anyone?)
Sometimes, though, people don't create chumros out of a sense of need to protect the original Torah laws or strengthen the relevant rabbinic enactments. Instead they feel an urge to reconcile their secular egalitarian values with their purported commitment to halachic Judaism. Inevitably, these conflicts all resolve the same way: their Jewish practice is adjusted, not their secular values. These adjustments are triumphed as a show of how the Torah's way of life can be made relevant to modern living. Inevitably when you look at the motivation, that isn't what's happened at all.
Such a place is Shirah Chadash, the so-called Orthodox egalitarian minyan in Yerushalayim. Their big innovation has been to require a minyan on both sides of the mechitzah before beginning to daven:
On any given Shabbat in Jerusalem, minyans around the city wait for ten men to begin praying. Only Shira Hadasha has to wait longer. Not because no one shows up, but because they require both ten men and ten women. "We take upon ourselves an extra requirement," said Elie Holzer, a founder of the minyan, noting that it's not a halachic statement but a social one. Halacha does guide the minyan's decision to let women lead certain parts of services while still using a mechitza.
It seems so nice and reasonable, yet it betrays a strong misunderstanding of halachic requirements when it comes to davening. For one thing, a minyan is a great thing to have while davening but speaking as a person who grew up in a small town shul that had a poorly motivated membership, it isn't essential. Furthermore, the purpose of gathering a minyan of ten adult males is because the halacha then allows the tzibur to recite those parts of the service that are d'var sheb'kedushah. The present of no, ten or a hundred women on the other side of the mechitzah is irrelevant as to whether this tzibur is formed. For another, the admission that the rule is a "social one" is also of concern. The sole arbiter of what is proper in a shul setting is halacha. Of course this doesn't apply to simple things like the colour of the carpet but when it comes to setting up the davening, adding or subtrating necessary requirements based on "social" reasons is a violation of this principle.
In the end, a Jew must ask himself what the halacha requires from him in any given situation. This is not always an easy question to ask. We approach it with predetermined biases and beliefs, wants and desires. Too often we blind ourselves to this basic fact and manipulate the Torah to give us the answer we want but in that case we aren't doing what the Torah wants but what we want while using it as a fig leaf to create a kosher facade for our actions. Shirah Chadashah seems to be a great example of this.
The true litmus test of being observant is how one responds to the halacha saying "no" to something one really wants. Not like "no cheeseburger for you!" but something that one deeply feels is right or that he is entitled to. Accepting the "no" denotes the intellectual and emotional maturity the halacha requires. Those seem to be lacking here.
Perhaps this is why, despite the plethora of rabbinic enactments and gezeiros that have formed around the basic Torah since it was given to Moshe Rabeinu, a"h, we are still very careful when studying the mitzvos to define which is d'oraisa and which is d'rabannon. While the latter are binding on us, we must clearly remember their position in the legal order of things. For example, the famous rule of avoiding a shvus d'shvus (yes, I know there are exceptions!). Otherwise one can come to create laws that eventually conceal any intent the Torah itself might originally have had. (Chumrah-of-the-week anyone?)
Sometimes, though, people don't create chumros out of a sense of need to protect the original Torah laws or strengthen the relevant rabbinic enactments. Instead they feel an urge to reconcile their secular egalitarian values with their purported commitment to halachic Judaism. Inevitably, these conflicts all resolve the same way: their Jewish practice is adjusted, not their secular values. These adjustments are triumphed as a show of how the Torah's way of life can be made relevant to modern living. Inevitably when you look at the motivation, that isn't what's happened at all.
Such a place is Shirah Chadash, the so-called Orthodox egalitarian minyan in Yerushalayim. Their big innovation has been to require a minyan on both sides of the mechitzah before beginning to daven:
On any given Shabbat in Jerusalem, minyans around the city wait for ten men to begin praying. Only Shira Hadasha has to wait longer. Not because no one shows up, but because they require both ten men and ten women. "We take upon ourselves an extra requirement," said Elie Holzer, a founder of the minyan, noting that it's not a halachic statement but a social one. Halacha does guide the minyan's decision to let women lead certain parts of services while still using a mechitza.
It seems so nice and reasonable, yet it betrays a strong misunderstanding of halachic requirements when it comes to davening. For one thing, a minyan is a great thing to have while davening but speaking as a person who grew up in a small town shul that had a poorly motivated membership, it isn't essential. Furthermore, the purpose of gathering a minyan of ten adult males is because the halacha then allows the tzibur to recite those parts of the service that are d'var sheb'kedushah. The present of no, ten or a hundred women on the other side of the mechitzah is irrelevant as to whether this tzibur is formed. For another, the admission that the rule is a "social one" is also of concern. The sole arbiter of what is proper in a shul setting is halacha. Of course this doesn't apply to simple things like the colour of the carpet but when it comes to setting up the davening, adding or subtrating necessary requirements based on "social" reasons is a violation of this principle.
In the end, a Jew must ask himself what the halacha requires from him in any given situation. This is not always an easy question to ask. We approach it with predetermined biases and beliefs, wants and desires. Too often we blind ourselves to this basic fact and manipulate the Torah to give us the answer we want but in that case we aren't doing what the Torah wants but what we want while using it as a fig leaf to create a kosher facade for our actions. Shirah Chadashah seems to be a great example of this.
The true litmus test of being observant is how one responds to the halacha saying "no" to something one really wants. Not like "no cheeseburger for you!" but something that one deeply feels is right or that he is entitled to. Accepting the "no" denotes the intellectual and emotional maturity the halacha requires. Those seem to be lacking here.
Monday, 8 June 2009
Saying It Like It Is
"You shall not call a conspiracy everything that the people calls a conspiracy, nor fear what it fears, not attribute strength to it." (Yishiyahu 8:12)
From the Judaica Press commentary:
"You of Chizkiyahu's company, even thought you are fever than Shevna's company, you shall not say: We decide according to the majority. (Shmos 23:2). To all that this people that is with Shevna says, for this is a band of the wicked and is not counted, so it is as regards the ten tribes who formed an alliance with the king of Egypt. (Rashi to Sanhedrin 27b)
"The Talmud related that Chizkiyahu himself feared that the group that had joined Sheva and wished to surrender to Sancheiriv actually had the status of a majority and that even God Himself regarded them as the legitimate representatives of the people, and would deliver them into the hands of the king of Ashur. The prophet therefore admonished the people not to consider Shevna's band as a band, or company. Since they are a band of wicked men, they are not counted at all. Only the God-feearing were counted even thought they were the minority. This is a lesson for all generations and all times, that God-fearing Jews should not lose courage nor feel that they are insignificant because the vast majority is not true to the Torah." (Rav A.J. Rosenberg)
Not that I would call non-observant Jews wicked, chas v'shalom. From my perspective, most are either missing important education or have allowed secular scholarship and its biases to misinform them as to the truth of Torah. That's not evil, rather it's unfortunate.
But for those who claim that Orthodoxy needs to change, or that the Orthodox need to stop acting like we "own Judaism", this verse and its interpretation stand as a stark reminder to us that we must have confidence in our beliefs. Even though we are at best 15% of the overall Jewish population, the truth of Torah gives us the assurance that what we are doing is right. Now all we have to do is, through positive example, inspire everyone else to see that.
From the Judaica Press commentary:
"You of Chizkiyahu's company, even thought you are fever than Shevna's company, you shall not say: We decide according to the majority. (Shmos 23:2). To all that this people that is with Shevna says, for this is a band of the wicked and is not counted, so it is as regards the ten tribes who formed an alliance with the king of Egypt. (Rashi to Sanhedrin 27b)
"The Talmud related that Chizkiyahu himself feared that the group that had joined Sheva and wished to surrender to Sancheiriv actually had the status of a majority and that even God Himself regarded them as the legitimate representatives of the people, and would deliver them into the hands of the king of Ashur. The prophet therefore admonished the people not to consider Shevna's band as a band, or company. Since they are a band of wicked men, they are not counted at all. Only the God-feearing were counted even thought they were the minority. This is a lesson for all generations and all times, that God-fearing Jews should not lose courage nor feel that they are insignificant because the vast majority is not true to the Torah." (Rav A.J. Rosenberg)
Not that I would call non-observant Jews wicked, chas v'shalom. From my perspective, most are either missing important education or have allowed secular scholarship and its biases to misinform them as to the truth of Torah. That's not evil, rather it's unfortunate.
But for those who claim that Orthodoxy needs to change, or that the Orthodox need to stop acting like we "own Judaism", this verse and its interpretation stand as a stark reminder to us that we must have confidence in our beliefs. Even though we are at best 15% of the overall Jewish population, the truth of Torah gives us the assurance that what we are doing is right. Now all we have to do is, through positive example, inspire everyone else to see that.
Sunday, 7 June 2009
Mutual Soliloquies
Rav Benjy Hecht over at Nishma who recently contributed to the ongoing discussion on whether Torah MiSinai is a plausible thing to believe in or not has put up his own post detailing his views on how the conversation in the comments section to this post went. I invite you to look over his piece and comment on it.
Confronting With Confidence
Many people are worried about Barack Obama's recent negative overtures to Israel and a dispassionate viewer of the news must admit that there is much to be concerned with. While Obama travels the world and apologizes for American's imagined misdeeds and begs for friendship on every continent he can find, when it comes to Israel there is no conciliation. To the Muslim world it is "We want you to love us, we're so sorry for what you say we've done to you, please be our friend!" To the Europeans it's "We want you to love us, it's wrong for us to impose our agenda on you, please be our friend!" But to Israel it's "Shut up, accept our agenda and don't complain!"
Fortunately, not all Israelis have fallen into the trap of thinking that Israel is a helpless recipient of American aid and therefore at its mercy should the Yanks tighten the screws in their pursuit of creating a terrorist 23rd Arab state in the heart of our land:
Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, a prominent Religious Zionism leader, called on Israel on Wednesday to conduct "tough negotiations" with the US on the issue, and added that "yielding to pressure only breeds more pressure."
He said that Israel must deal with the Americans like Mordechai dealt with Haman, when he refused to bow down to him.
In addition to tough talk, Rav Aviner notes that American aid isn't sent across the world because of any altruistic purpose:
Beit El's rabbi admitted Israel relies on the US for its security needs, but pointed out that the Americans were not motivated by "love and charity" but rather by a desire to preserve their interests in the region. "When there are common interests there is tough negotiation," he said.
People often forget that while Israel may receive financial help from the U.S., America more than recoups its invents with what Israel provides. Listening stations, a safe port for the Sixth Fleet, strategic information are all things Israel is able to reliably give the U.S. and something no Arab state can offer. It's been well known for years that in order to replace what Israel now provides America would cost billions of dollars.
All this is on top of the billions of dollars of American investment in the country made possible by the educated workforce.
One thing that is constant about Americans is that they love negotiations. Another is that they love to win. Israel presenting itself as a weak opponent will only encourage the Obamanation to push harder in his calls for Israel's suicide. America has what to lose if it betrays Israel and it's time the Israelis reminded America of this.
Fortunately, not all Israelis have fallen into the trap of thinking that Israel is a helpless recipient of American aid and therefore at its mercy should the Yanks tighten the screws in their pursuit of creating a terrorist 23rd Arab state in the heart of our land:
Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, a prominent Religious Zionism leader, called on Israel on Wednesday to conduct "tough negotiations" with the US on the issue, and added that "yielding to pressure only breeds more pressure."
He said that Israel must deal with the Americans like Mordechai dealt with Haman, when he refused to bow down to him.
In addition to tough talk, Rav Aviner notes that American aid isn't sent across the world because of any altruistic purpose:
Beit El's rabbi admitted Israel relies on the US for its security needs, but pointed out that the Americans were not motivated by "love and charity" but rather by a desire to preserve their interests in the region. "When there are common interests there is tough negotiation," he said.
People often forget that while Israel may receive financial help from the U.S., America more than recoups its invents with what Israel provides. Listening stations, a safe port for the Sixth Fleet, strategic information are all things Israel is able to reliably give the U.S. and something no Arab state can offer. It's been well known for years that in order to replace what Israel now provides America would cost billions of dollars.
All this is on top of the billions of dollars of American investment in the country made possible by the educated workforce.
One thing that is constant about Americans is that they love negotiations. Another is that they love to win. Israel presenting itself as a weak opponent will only encourage the Obamanation to push harder in his calls for Israel's suicide. America has what to lose if it betrays Israel and it's time the Israelis reminded America of this.
Kiddush HaShem... Or Maybe Not
In a democracy there are ways to protest and ways not to protest. It's one thing to gather large numbers of people, obtain the proper permit and stage a public demonstration. Such things should be allowed in an open and free society. Unfortunately some people, swelled with feelings of righteousness or indignation, feel that these rules, which balance the right for public demonstrations with the need for public safety, don't apply to their cause. We saw this recently as Tamils in major cities around the world desperately demonstrated as their mini-state collapsed.
And so it goes with the Chareidi population of Yerushalayim every time something happens that they disagree with. This time is was a public parking lot that was opened on Shabbos. Previously it's been bus shelters with immodest ads, the to'evah parade, and traffic on Rechov Bar Ilan, amongst other minor issues. It seems the standard response for the residents of Meah Shearim to anything they don't like is to descend into barbarity. In order to preserve the holiness of Yerushalayim, they are prepared to fill its streets with dirty diapers and burning garbage cans.
Not being a Talmudic scholar of the highest order, I cannot understand how such things enhance us in the eyes of the non-religious population, much less the nations of the world. It also escapes me how such behaviour enhances the holiness they are fighting to protect.
It's one thing to demand that Yerushalayim observe Shabbos as much as possible. As citizens of the country they have that right. Perhaps a more effective method would be to line people up and down the street leading to the lot silently holding placards reminding people of the concept of Shabbos in the first place.
Rioting and ranting like spoiled children accomplished only negative outcomes.
And so it goes with the Chareidi population of Yerushalayim every time something happens that they disagree with. This time is was a public parking lot that was opened on Shabbos. Previously it's been bus shelters with immodest ads, the to'evah parade, and traffic on Rechov Bar Ilan, amongst other minor issues. It seems the standard response for the residents of Meah Shearim to anything they don't like is to descend into barbarity. In order to preserve the holiness of Yerushalayim, they are prepared to fill its streets with dirty diapers and burning garbage cans.
Not being a Talmudic scholar of the highest order, I cannot understand how such things enhance us in the eyes of the non-religious population, much less the nations of the world. It also escapes me how such behaviour enhances the holiness they are fighting to protect.
It's one thing to demand that Yerushalayim observe Shabbos as much as possible. As citizens of the country they have that right. Perhaps a more effective method would be to line people up and down the street leading to the lot silently holding placards reminding people of the concept of Shabbos in the first place.
Rioting and ranting like spoiled children accomplished only negative outcomes.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Goodness and Righteousness
"Woe to the wicked who does evil, for the recompense of his hands shall be done to him." (Yishiyahu 3:11)
The gemara (Kiddushin 40a) notes a redundancy in this verse. "Is there a righteous man who is good and a righteous man who is no good? Rather, one who is good to Heaven and also to his fellow man is a good righteous man. One who is good to Heaven but not to his fellow man is a righteous man who is not good. 'Woe to th evil wicked man' Now, is there an evil wicked man and a wicked man who is not evil? Rather, one who is evil both to Heaven and to his fellow man is an evil wicked man, while one who is evil to Heaven but not to his fellow man is a wicked man who is not evil.
Now, this concept is not exactly a novel one in Jewish thought. We know very clearly that there are two categories of mitzvos, between man and man and between man and God. The verse in Yishiyahu, as understood by Chazal, note that one can apply specific labels to one is observant of both, either or neither of these two categories.
Thus one can be completely ignorant of one's obligations to Heaven or, chas v'shalom, aware of them and simply not interested in performing those duties but as long as this person treats his fellow human being with decency and honesty, he is still "good" even if he lacks what it takes to be called "righteous". Similarly, the guy in the black hat who makes sure he shockles with all the fervor in the world while cheating the local business he works for also has a measure of righteousness for he is careful to relate properly to God even as he neglects his responsibilities to society.
Or is that really so?
Take a look back at the two principle stories in Noach, that of the generation of the Mabul and that of the generation of the Tower of Bavel. The former are never explicitly labelled as idol worshippers in the text, the latter on the other hand try to start a war with God. The former live lives of compelte anarchy in a society rife with theft and murder. The latter live in harmony with one another even in the absence of God's visible presence or a hint of his Torah. And who gets sentences to total destruction? The generation of the Mabul.
Why? Chazal drive this lesson home clearly. God is prepared to tolerate a godless society in which there is rule of law. He cannot tolerate a society that acknowledges him but in which people treat each other improperly.
But if both categories of mitzvos are equally important, and we believe that they are, then why should this be so? The generation of the Tower of Bavel should have been just as likely to be wiped out because of their revolt against God.
From the fact that they weren't even criticized openly by God, we can learn an important lesson. The reason is that in a proper society fear and knowledge of God can eventually arise that is pure and true. In an anarchy, even if people run around claiming obescience to the Ribono shel Olam, there is no chance of this happening because even those who take the time to worship God will ultimately do so with resources they have acquired through sinning against their fellow.
In other words, you cannot truly perform ben adam l'makom until you have mastered ben adam l'chaveiro. The best Jew is exceptional in his performance of both these categories but the latter clearly serves as the foundation for God fearing behaviour. You must be good and from there you can learn to be righteous.
The gemara (Kiddushin 40a) notes a redundancy in this verse. "Is there a righteous man who is good and a righteous man who is no good? Rather, one who is good to Heaven and also to his fellow man is a good righteous man. One who is good to Heaven but not to his fellow man is a righteous man who is not good. 'Woe to th evil wicked man' Now, is there an evil wicked man and a wicked man who is not evil? Rather, one who is evil both to Heaven and to his fellow man is an evil wicked man, while one who is evil to Heaven but not to his fellow man is a wicked man who is not evil.
Now, this concept is not exactly a novel one in Jewish thought. We know very clearly that there are two categories of mitzvos, between man and man and between man and God. The verse in Yishiyahu, as understood by Chazal, note that one can apply specific labels to one is observant of both, either or neither of these two categories.
Thus one can be completely ignorant of one's obligations to Heaven or, chas v'shalom, aware of them and simply not interested in performing those duties but as long as this person treats his fellow human being with decency and honesty, he is still "good" even if he lacks what it takes to be called "righteous". Similarly, the guy in the black hat who makes sure he shockles with all the fervor in the world while cheating the local business he works for also has a measure of righteousness for he is careful to relate properly to God even as he neglects his responsibilities to society.
Or is that really so?
Take a look back at the two principle stories in Noach, that of the generation of the Mabul and that of the generation of the Tower of Bavel. The former are never explicitly labelled as idol worshippers in the text, the latter on the other hand try to start a war with God. The former live lives of compelte anarchy in a society rife with theft and murder. The latter live in harmony with one another even in the absence of God's visible presence or a hint of his Torah. And who gets sentences to total destruction? The generation of the Mabul.
Why? Chazal drive this lesson home clearly. God is prepared to tolerate a godless society in which there is rule of law. He cannot tolerate a society that acknowledges him but in which people treat each other improperly.
But if both categories of mitzvos are equally important, and we believe that they are, then why should this be so? The generation of the Tower of Bavel should have been just as likely to be wiped out because of their revolt against God.
From the fact that they weren't even criticized openly by God, we can learn an important lesson. The reason is that in a proper society fear and knowledge of God can eventually arise that is pure and true. In an anarchy, even if people run around claiming obescience to the Ribono shel Olam, there is no chance of this happening because even those who take the time to worship God will ultimately do so with resources they have acquired through sinning against their fellow.
In other words, you cannot truly perform ben adam l'makom until you have mastered ben adam l'chaveiro. The best Jew is exceptional in his performance of both these categories but the latter clearly serves as the foundation for God fearing behaviour. You must be good and from there you can learn to be righteous.
Science and Skeptics
Here, for the uninitiated, is how real science works:
I flip a switch in front of you and the light turns on. What can you firmly conclude from this? Only that there was what seemed to be a causal relationship between the switch and light. If I repeatedly flip the switch and the light goes off, you can then conclude that flipping the switch has a definite causal relationship with the light going on and off. And that's it.
Why? Because you cannot be sure that the flipping of the switch is what actually turned the light on. Perhaps there's an external factor that notes the switch being flipped and turns on the light. Perhaps I, the flipper, am aware that the light will turn itself on and off and I'm fooling you by timing my switch flipping to a predetermined event that I'm just taking credit for.
In actual fact, it isn't the switch that turns the light on. It's the flow of electrons that is opened up by the flipping of the switch that turns the light on. The switch, which you might have concluded is the direct cause, is actually one step removed from the light turning on.
That's real science.
Here's how skeptics work. We have two Torahs, Jewish and Samaritan, with significant differences between the two texts. The latter is older, the former is known to have been edited over time with final corrections being completed about 1000 years ago, therefore the latter is more authentic. Any changes, being earlier, represent greater authenticity and therefore the differences stand as clear evidence that our Torah was heavily changed over time and thus the seemingly inviolable principle of the unchanging Torah since Sinai is refuted. Not that the skeptics ever believed in Sinai anyway.
How easy is it to tear this thinking apart? Quite easy, using real science. Simply put, the existence of differences between an earlier work of literature and a similar but later one which, at an earlier point in history served as the template for the earlier piece, provides only one legitimate conclusions: there are differences between the two texts.
Who says that because the Samaritan torah is earlier that it is more accurate? One could easily suggest that it's very first edition was corrupted, that most of the differences between our current copy of the Torah and theirs were because of changes that they made, instead of problems creeping into our text. Certainly from a religious perspective this makes tremendous sense. Remember that for those of us who accept that the Written Text was written with the entire Oral Law already in existence and that supposed inconsistencies in the text are intentional clues to allow a reader to derive the Oral Law, it is quite reasonable to note that the Samaritans got their Torah wrong. What for us is a hint to something in the Oral Law would be, to those without that Oral Law, a simple spelling mistake, an incomplete narrative or an inconsistency in the text between one section and another. No wonder their text is different. They were trying to create a more cohesive document from their perspective.
The only way to know which document is more accurate is to find a Torah scroll from the First Temple period from before the destruction of the Northern Kingdom. That Torah would predate both ours and the Samaritan and both could be compared with it to see whose version is more faithful to the original. In the absence of that evidence, one cannot draw conclusions as to whose version is right. It is scientifically unacceptable.
No, we cannot claim that the Torah scrolls we read from today are letter for letter the same as the one given to Moshe Rabeinu, a"h, at Har Sinai. However I have noted before that the point of the Torah is to provide us with an insight into halacha. The Torah we have before us today, with its minor variations from the original , does that in the exact same way as Moshe Rabeinu's did. In other words, it might be just semantics but we do have the same Torah that he received at Har Sinai.
I flip a switch in front of you and the light turns on. What can you firmly conclude from this? Only that there was what seemed to be a causal relationship between the switch and light. If I repeatedly flip the switch and the light goes off, you can then conclude that flipping the switch has a definite causal relationship with the light going on and off. And that's it.
Why? Because you cannot be sure that the flipping of the switch is what actually turned the light on. Perhaps there's an external factor that notes the switch being flipped and turns on the light. Perhaps I, the flipper, am aware that the light will turn itself on and off and I'm fooling you by timing my switch flipping to a predetermined event that I'm just taking credit for.
In actual fact, it isn't the switch that turns the light on. It's the flow of electrons that is opened up by the flipping of the switch that turns the light on. The switch, which you might have concluded is the direct cause, is actually one step removed from the light turning on.
That's real science.
Here's how skeptics work. We have two Torahs, Jewish and Samaritan, with significant differences between the two texts. The latter is older, the former is known to have been edited over time with final corrections being completed about 1000 years ago, therefore the latter is more authentic. Any changes, being earlier, represent greater authenticity and therefore the differences stand as clear evidence that our Torah was heavily changed over time and thus the seemingly inviolable principle of the unchanging Torah since Sinai is refuted. Not that the skeptics ever believed in Sinai anyway.
How easy is it to tear this thinking apart? Quite easy, using real science. Simply put, the existence of differences between an earlier work of literature and a similar but later one which, at an earlier point in history served as the template for the earlier piece, provides only one legitimate conclusions: there are differences between the two texts.
Who says that because the Samaritan torah is earlier that it is more accurate? One could easily suggest that it's very first edition was corrupted, that most of the differences between our current copy of the Torah and theirs were because of changes that they made, instead of problems creeping into our text. Certainly from a religious perspective this makes tremendous sense. Remember that for those of us who accept that the Written Text was written with the entire Oral Law already in existence and that supposed inconsistencies in the text are intentional clues to allow a reader to derive the Oral Law, it is quite reasonable to note that the Samaritans got their Torah wrong. What for us is a hint to something in the Oral Law would be, to those without that Oral Law, a simple spelling mistake, an incomplete narrative or an inconsistency in the text between one section and another. No wonder their text is different. They were trying to create a more cohesive document from their perspective.
The only way to know which document is more accurate is to find a Torah scroll from the First Temple period from before the destruction of the Northern Kingdom. That Torah would predate both ours and the Samaritan and both could be compared with it to see whose version is more faithful to the original. In the absence of that evidence, one cannot draw conclusions as to whose version is right. It is scientifically unacceptable.
No, we cannot claim that the Torah scrolls we read from today are letter for letter the same as the one given to Moshe Rabeinu, a"h, at Har Sinai. However I have noted before that the point of the Torah is to provide us with an insight into halacha. The Torah we have before us today, with its minor variations from the original , does that in the exact same way as Moshe Rabeinu's did. In other words, it might be just semantics but we do have the same Torah that he received at Har Sinai.
Sunday, 31 May 2009
For the Orthodox Only
A few years ago, Rav Yonasan Rosenblum wrote a piece on how Shavuos, in contradistinction to Peach and Sukkos, is essentially an Orthodox-only holiday:
Matan Torah is the most important event in human history. Had our ancestors not accepted the Torah, all of Creation would have returned to its original formlessness. Yet most Jews Shavuos have barely heard of Shavuos, the celebration of Matan Torah. In Eretz Yisrael, the contrast between Shavuos and the other yomim tovim could not be more stark. Most Jews celebrate Pesach and Sukkot in one form or another. Almost all families sit down to a Seder. And even in non-religious neighborhoods, many families build sukkahs. On Yom Kippur, the streets fall largely silent, and a large majority of the population fast. In short, the rhythms of the Jewish calendar are felt.
While the situation is not quite as dire in North America - many non-Orthodox communities in larger centres have all-night learn-a-thons, for example - the contrast is there. For all Orthodox Jews, Shavuos is on par with Pesach and Sukkos. Perhaps it's even more appreciate as it involves the least tirchah to prepare for. For the non-Orthodox, it's only selectively known and enthusiatically observed.
There is, however, another day in the Jewish calender that is observed universally by the Orthodox and ignored by most of the non-religious: Tisha B'Av. The reasons for this are simple. Most non-religious Jews don't realize the gap in the religious lives that the absence of the Temple (may it be speedily rebuilt) brings. In addition, the timing of the holiday, in the middle of summer vacation, isn't very pragmatic. As a result, while frum shuls are filled for the reading of Eichah, outside of the Ramah camp system and larger synagogues in larger centres, most heterodox communities let Tisha B'Av pass with nary a murmer.
What is the connection between the two? The Jewish Week, in its latest editorial piece, would like to look at Shavuos as a holiday of Jewish unity:
One powerful message of Shavuot (May 29-30) is that despite our differences in observance and ideology, we share and treasure the same Torah. The concept of one God, the 613 commandments, the notion that each of us is created in the image of our Creator, the weekly observance of Shabbat, along with other key elements, however we may interpret them, are a revealed legacy of the encounter between God and the Jewish people at Sinai.It is important to remember this bond at a time when we are concerned about our shrinking numbers and when divisions among us make headlines. Rabbi Norman Lamm, the chancellor and former president of Yeshiva University, caused a stir in recent days when he asserted in an interview with the Jerusalem Post that the liberal branches of Judaism are disappearing. “With a heavy heart we will soon say Kaddish on the Conservative and Reform movements,” he said. “The Conservatives are in a mood of despondency and pessimism,” he added. “They are closing schools and in general shrinking.”As for the Reform, they “may show a rise because if you add goyim to Jews, then you will do OK,” a reference to the movement’s decision to include as Jews children of patrilineal descent.Such words are not only hurtful, but at odds with the notion of Klal Yisrael, the unity of the Jewish people, that Rabbi Lamm has championed throughout his proud career. What’s more, they fly in the face of statistics showing that nearly 80 percent of American Jewry is made up of Conservative and Reform Jews.It is true that Orthodoxy, once consigned by experts to extinction, has grown in recent years, strengthened by ideological conviction and large families. But Rabbi Lamm has been among those who consistently warned against triumphalism among the Orthodox. Part of the problem with the divisions among us is that both traditionalists and liberals seem to be convinced, at times, that the other cannot endure, so why bother to reconcile?The festival of Shavuot, underscoring the one Torah we all hold dear, and its theme of Ruth, the true convert from whom, we believe, will come the Messiah, reminds us that each Jew is precious. We can disagree among ourselves, with respect, but our motive should be compassion, not defeat.
While these are special words, they are also full of fluff. The real message of Shavuos is not about Jewish "unity" but that 50 days after yeztias Mitzrayim God Allmighty revealed Himself to us at Har Sinai and gave us His Torah, re-branding us as an am segulah.
In the many millenia since then, Matan Torah has had a repeatedly rough time of it. While the cloud of God still covered Har Sinai above them, the eirav rav coerced Aharon HaCohen into making the molten calf. Is it any wonder that today Sinai Denial is still in full swing? Indeed, within Reform and Conservatism, it is quite standard to accept the Documentary Hypothesis and deny the revelation at Sinai. You're considered either a fanatic or hopelessly naive if you insist that God spoke to Moshe Rabeinu, a"h.
As the editorial notes, each Jew is indeed precious and that despite our disagreements we must remember that we are one giant family whose love for one another must be paramount. But what unites us as Jews cannot be some airy fairy concept of tikun olam in the form of ecofascism or a common denial of the basic tenets of Chrisianity and Islam, but rather an acceptance that we are a people founded on, immersed in and sustained by Torah. Otherwise, if one denies the significance or even the occurence of the event that it is based on, what is the point of observing Shavuos?
Matan Torah is the most important event in human history. Had our ancestors not accepted the Torah, all of Creation would have returned to its original formlessness. Yet most Jews Shavuos have barely heard of Shavuos, the celebration of Matan Torah. In Eretz Yisrael, the contrast between Shavuos and the other yomim tovim could not be more stark. Most Jews celebrate Pesach and Sukkot in one form or another. Almost all families sit down to a Seder. And even in non-religious neighborhoods, many families build sukkahs. On Yom Kippur, the streets fall largely silent, and a large majority of the population fast. In short, the rhythms of the Jewish calendar are felt.
While the situation is not quite as dire in North America - many non-Orthodox communities in larger centres have all-night learn-a-thons, for example - the contrast is there. For all Orthodox Jews, Shavuos is on par with Pesach and Sukkos. Perhaps it's even more appreciate as it involves the least tirchah to prepare for. For the non-Orthodox, it's only selectively known and enthusiatically observed.
There is, however, another day in the Jewish calender that is observed universally by the Orthodox and ignored by most of the non-religious: Tisha B'Av. The reasons for this are simple. Most non-religious Jews don't realize the gap in the religious lives that the absence of the Temple (may it be speedily rebuilt) brings. In addition, the timing of the holiday, in the middle of summer vacation, isn't very pragmatic. As a result, while frum shuls are filled for the reading of Eichah, outside of the Ramah camp system and larger synagogues in larger centres, most heterodox communities let Tisha B'Av pass with nary a murmer.
What is the connection between the two? The Jewish Week, in its latest editorial piece, would like to look at Shavuos as a holiday of Jewish unity:
One powerful message of Shavuot (May 29-30) is that despite our differences in observance and ideology, we share and treasure the same Torah. The concept of one God, the 613 commandments, the notion that each of us is created in the image of our Creator, the weekly observance of Shabbat, along with other key elements, however we may interpret them, are a revealed legacy of the encounter between God and the Jewish people at Sinai.It is important to remember this bond at a time when we are concerned about our shrinking numbers and when divisions among us make headlines. Rabbi Norman Lamm, the chancellor and former president of Yeshiva University, caused a stir in recent days when he asserted in an interview with the Jerusalem Post that the liberal branches of Judaism are disappearing. “With a heavy heart we will soon say Kaddish on the Conservative and Reform movements,” he said. “The Conservatives are in a mood of despondency and pessimism,” he added. “They are closing schools and in general shrinking.”As for the Reform, they “may show a rise because if you add goyim to Jews, then you will do OK,” a reference to the movement’s decision to include as Jews children of patrilineal descent.Such words are not only hurtful, but at odds with the notion of Klal Yisrael, the unity of the Jewish people, that Rabbi Lamm has championed throughout his proud career. What’s more, they fly in the face of statistics showing that nearly 80 percent of American Jewry is made up of Conservative and Reform Jews.It is true that Orthodoxy, once consigned by experts to extinction, has grown in recent years, strengthened by ideological conviction and large families. But Rabbi Lamm has been among those who consistently warned against triumphalism among the Orthodox. Part of the problem with the divisions among us is that both traditionalists and liberals seem to be convinced, at times, that the other cannot endure, so why bother to reconcile?The festival of Shavuot, underscoring the one Torah we all hold dear, and its theme of Ruth, the true convert from whom, we believe, will come the Messiah, reminds us that each Jew is precious. We can disagree among ourselves, with respect, but our motive should be compassion, not defeat.
While these are special words, they are also full of fluff. The real message of Shavuos is not about Jewish "unity" but that 50 days after yeztias Mitzrayim God Allmighty revealed Himself to us at Har Sinai and gave us His Torah, re-branding us as an am segulah.
In the many millenia since then, Matan Torah has had a repeatedly rough time of it. While the cloud of God still covered Har Sinai above them, the eirav rav coerced Aharon HaCohen into making the molten calf. Is it any wonder that today Sinai Denial is still in full swing? Indeed, within Reform and Conservatism, it is quite standard to accept the Documentary Hypothesis and deny the revelation at Sinai. You're considered either a fanatic or hopelessly naive if you insist that God spoke to Moshe Rabeinu, a"h.
As the editorial notes, each Jew is indeed precious and that despite our disagreements we must remember that we are one giant family whose love for one another must be paramount. But what unites us as Jews cannot be some airy fairy concept of tikun olam in the form of ecofascism or a common denial of the basic tenets of Chrisianity and Islam, but rather an acceptance that we are a people founded on, immersed in and sustained by Torah. Otherwise, if one denies the significance or even the occurence of the event that it is based on, what is the point of observing Shavuos?
Making A Non-Issue into A... Non-Issue
Relatively new commenter Shalmo has repeatedly try to point out that the claim that the Torah we read today is the same Torah Moshe Rabbeinu, a"h, received at Sinai, is specious. He even helpfully provided a link which I follow up on. He has repeatedly said that he is patient awaiting my reply to his challenge and until now, due to Shavous, I have been unable to respond. But it ain't Shavous no more, eh?
The first point is that he uses the Samaritan Torah as a reference. The reason for this sounds logical. While the masoretic text of the holy Writ underwent multiple editing jobs until fairly recently in history, the Samaritan Torah did not. Therefore, if the Samaritan Torah is based on ours, it potentially represents an older, unaltered version of our Torah and discrepancies can be used to prove that our manuscript was altered at some point.
To answer this challenge, I would like to note the parameters I am working with.
First, how do I define a significant change in the 'script? No one except those living in deepest, darkest Me'ah She'arim deny that the Torah we read from today has minor differences that have crept in over history. There are the famous tikunei Sofrim, there are the cases where an aleph and hey get alternated, etc. There is even a comment somewhere in Vayikra from Rashi where he complains about the superfluous presence of the word "et" while in the text the word itself does not appear. Therefore I will not take the position that our Torah is, letter for letter, the one handed to Moshe Rabeinu at Har Sinai.
So for me a significant change is one that is consequential. Consequential, in turn, means that there is a halachic significant to the change. For example, if there is a variant fragment out there that says that Noah's sons were Shem, Cham and Archie, for example, who cares? It does not change the halacha. From this perspective, it is important to note that no such important changes exist.
Further, using the Samaritan text is also problematic. There are multiple versions, including one that is considered authoritative but without huge amounts of evidence to support the claim. There are a couple of major changes that they have made to the text (switching mountains in one instance to fit their own personal history). Further, according to our Bible the Samaritans maintained a level of idol worship even after accepting our Torah. I cannot see the logic of using another nationality's version of the Torah, one which is openly corrupted from the original, as a prooftext for ours.
The second point is to note that how one reads the Torah affects whether one sees certain incongruities within the text as problematic or revealing. For the academic who is looking for textual consistency in terms of narrative, grammar, etc., the Torah contains a whole host of problems. Narratives are inconsistent (compare the story of how Eliezer meets Rivkah Imeinu to the version Eliezer relates to her familiy), or repetitive (the two stories of the Creation of Man), grammar can sometimes seem to switch eras and spelling is erratic. This strongly points to the idea of either multiple authors or excessive editing over the centuries.
However, a believing Jew who approaches the text armed with the right commentators including the Gemara quickly learns that every single possible problematic part of the Torah is actually revelatory. Supposed mistakes or inconsistencies are meant to teach lessons, or shed light on applications of the Oral Law. Two specific commentaries which resolve most of the problems academics raise are those of Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, zt"l, and the Netziv, zt"l, who both toil to show that the entire Oral Law is references through the Written Law and that there are no superfluities or mistakes in the entire text.
For those on the outside, this is seen as an exercise in apologetics but again, that's because they insist on, a priori, approaching the Torah as a piece of literature. If one refuses to see it as the word of God, then all the implications revealed by religious study of the text become irrelevant.
My final argument in support of this is what I call the "Ezra wasn't an idiot" argument. Many documentary hypothesis supports suggest that the Torah we have today is actually a synthesis of multiple (four or five) previous religious documents, each of which held authority in a different part of the Jewish people. For example, the Kohanim lived according to what we call Vayikra. Ezra, in an attempt to rebuild the Jewish people, took these documents and "redacted" them into a single document to create a false but necessary common history including a shared revelation at Sinai.
Never mind that no trace of these four or five separate Torahs has ever been discovered. While lack of his restaurant receipts is enough for academics to "prove" that David HaMelech, a"h, never existed, lack of existence of proto-Torah scrolls isn't proof of absence to them.
But what really strikes me about the idiocy of the DH hypothesis is that it assumes Ezra was a lousy editor. He left in spelling mistakes, didn't make grammer consistent, left inaccuracies between adjacent verses and so on.
Now, speaking as a (secondy) character in a fantasy fiction trilogy, I know something of how books are edited. The books I feature (somewhat) prominently in underwent multiple drafts and edits to ensure that spelling mistakes and inconsistencies were removed from the plot. And while they are breathtaking works of fantasy fiction they do not have quite the historical importance of a book like the Torah. Now imagine you're Ezra and you're trying to convince people that the scroll you're handing out to them is a God-given document. Are you really going to allow spelling mistakes for people to point out? Please.
In conclusion, when one reads the Torah as a religious work instead of an academic one, there are no problems with finding oddities in the text.
The first point is that he uses the Samaritan Torah as a reference. The reason for this sounds logical. While the masoretic text of the holy Writ underwent multiple editing jobs until fairly recently in history, the Samaritan Torah did not. Therefore, if the Samaritan Torah is based on ours, it potentially represents an older, unaltered version of our Torah and discrepancies can be used to prove that our manuscript was altered at some point.
To answer this challenge, I would like to note the parameters I am working with.
First, how do I define a significant change in the 'script? No one except those living in deepest, darkest Me'ah She'arim deny that the Torah we read from today has minor differences that have crept in over history. There are the famous tikunei Sofrim, there are the cases where an aleph and hey get alternated, etc. There is even a comment somewhere in Vayikra from Rashi where he complains about the superfluous presence of the word "et" while in the text the word itself does not appear. Therefore I will not take the position that our Torah is, letter for letter, the one handed to Moshe Rabeinu at Har Sinai.
So for me a significant change is one that is consequential. Consequential, in turn, means that there is a halachic significant to the change. For example, if there is a variant fragment out there that says that Noah's sons were Shem, Cham and Archie, for example, who cares? It does not change the halacha. From this perspective, it is important to note that no such important changes exist.
Further, using the Samaritan text is also problematic. There are multiple versions, including one that is considered authoritative but without huge amounts of evidence to support the claim. There are a couple of major changes that they have made to the text (switching mountains in one instance to fit their own personal history). Further, according to our Bible the Samaritans maintained a level of idol worship even after accepting our Torah. I cannot see the logic of using another nationality's version of the Torah, one which is openly corrupted from the original, as a prooftext for ours.
The second point is to note that how one reads the Torah affects whether one sees certain incongruities within the text as problematic or revealing. For the academic who is looking for textual consistency in terms of narrative, grammar, etc., the Torah contains a whole host of problems. Narratives are inconsistent (compare the story of how Eliezer meets Rivkah Imeinu to the version Eliezer relates to her familiy), or repetitive (the two stories of the Creation of Man), grammar can sometimes seem to switch eras and spelling is erratic. This strongly points to the idea of either multiple authors or excessive editing over the centuries.
However, a believing Jew who approaches the text armed with the right commentators including the Gemara quickly learns that every single possible problematic part of the Torah is actually revelatory. Supposed mistakes or inconsistencies are meant to teach lessons, or shed light on applications of the Oral Law. Two specific commentaries which resolve most of the problems academics raise are those of Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, zt"l, and the Netziv, zt"l, who both toil to show that the entire Oral Law is references through the Written Law and that there are no superfluities or mistakes in the entire text.
For those on the outside, this is seen as an exercise in apologetics but again, that's because they insist on, a priori, approaching the Torah as a piece of literature. If one refuses to see it as the word of God, then all the implications revealed by religious study of the text become irrelevant.
My final argument in support of this is what I call the "Ezra wasn't an idiot" argument. Many documentary hypothesis supports suggest that the Torah we have today is actually a synthesis of multiple (four or five) previous religious documents, each of which held authority in a different part of the Jewish people. For example, the Kohanim lived according to what we call Vayikra. Ezra, in an attempt to rebuild the Jewish people, took these documents and "redacted" them into a single document to create a false but necessary common history including a shared revelation at Sinai.
Never mind that no trace of these four or five separate Torahs has ever been discovered. While lack of his restaurant receipts is enough for academics to "prove" that David HaMelech, a"h, never existed, lack of existence of proto-Torah scrolls isn't proof of absence to them.
But what really strikes me about the idiocy of the DH hypothesis is that it assumes Ezra was a lousy editor. He left in spelling mistakes, didn't make grammer consistent, left inaccuracies between adjacent verses and so on.
Now, speaking as a (secondy) character in a fantasy fiction trilogy, I know something of how books are edited. The books I feature (somewhat) prominently in underwent multiple drafts and edits to ensure that spelling mistakes and inconsistencies were removed from the plot. And while they are breathtaking works of fantasy fiction they do not have quite the historical importance of a book like the Torah. Now imagine you're Ezra and you're trying to convince people that the scroll you're handing out to them is a God-given document. Are you really going to allow spelling mistakes for people to point out? Please.
In conclusion, when one reads the Torah as a religious work instead of an academic one, there are no problems with finding oddities in the text.
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Look for the Rational in All The Wrong Places
Gary Rosenblatt, editor of The Jewish Week can't seem to understand anti-Semitism. In his latest piece:
Have we reached the point where we not only take anti-Semitism for granted but don’t even question the illogical attitudes of those who hate us?I learned with shock, as we all did, of the attempt of four former convicts from New York, Muslim converts, who reportedly out of opposition to the U.S. war in Afghanistan, decided to blow up synagogues, and presumably Jews, in the Bronx. Does that make any sense?Surely we will come to learn more details in the days and weeks ahead, but the strange conflation of American foreign policy, Israel, militant Islam and anti-Semitism is as dangerous as it is puzzling. Yet we have been conditioned to accept the notion that virtually any controversial event in the world
somehow becomes linked to Israel, Zionists and Jews, in a negative way.
There are two general approaches to understand Jew hatred: the religious and the non-religious.
The religious approach is relatively simple. Our sages tell us that "it is a halacha that Eisav hates Yaakov." Not a general thing, not a custom, not something common, but a law, using the same word that one might use to discuss rules about kashrus or Shabbos. In other words, it's a given for us.
What's more, we recognize this hatred is irrational. The Midrash tells the story of Hadrian, y"sh, the Emperor of Rome who was walking down the street when a Jew greeted him. Hadrian, insulted by the idea of a Jew speaking to him, had the poor guy executed. The Jew's friend who witnessed this then tried to sneak by but when Hadrian caught him and discovered that he too was a Jew, he had him executed as well. Hadrian's advisors then asked about the obvious contradiction: you killed the first Jew for greeting you and the second Jew for not greeting you. Where's the logic in all that? Hadrian's answer was: Don't tell me how to deal with my enemies.
For the non-religious, understanding anti-Semitism has always been much more difficult. After all, it's easy for them to understand Jew hatred from a xenophobic perspective. Religious Jews in their strange garb, speaking a strange language, refusing to integrate into the surrounding culture, well that would make sense. Initially suspicious turns into eventual hatred.
But let us remember that the tragedy of the Holocaust did not start with religious Jews. Hitler, y"h, began with the non-religious and the charges against them were that they wore German garb, spoke German perfectly and were desperate to integrate into German society, thereby diluting the Aryan race's purity. What's more, looking at the Nazi literature of the time, like Der Streumer, it's easy to discover what the German mind thought of their Jews: underneath the assimilated Teutonic exterior was the same bearded and caftaned Jew that infested Poland.
Movies like The Pianist make this point perfectly. Adrien Brody and his family are assimilated Jews in Poland during the war. There are, in fact, only assimilated Jews in Poland if this film is to be believed. They are so assimilated that they have Polish names, participate in Polish culture and, other than a bris milah (hopefully) they betray no trace of Jewishness. Yet when the Nazis come it's off to the ghetto for them and the viewer is forced to ask: why? They're no different from the non-Jewish Poles. What was so special about them that warranted such harsh treatment?
As the holiday of Shavous draws close, we are given our answer. About 3329 years ago we stood at the foot of Har Sinai as God Allmight, in all his glory, revealed Himself to us and gave us His Torah. The Torah is the source of morality, God's foothold in a world that would rather not have Him in it so that true goodness can be expunged. We are the guardians of that foothold and the nations of world, consciously or not, know this. Jews observant of the Torah's law know this. By virute of the covenant, we cannot be separate from Him. Just as they hate Him, they hate us. A Jew cannot assimilate away from this hatred and attempts to try just worsen things. No one loves a God fearing Jew but a perceived turncoat is always worse.
There will always be Jew hatred until the final redemption (may it come speedily) and it will never appear rational to the initiated because a rational approach exclude God's importance in all that befalls us as a nation. May we merit that this is the last Shavuos in golus and that our Father in Heaven speedily return us to our land in front of the eyes of the nations of the world so that His Torah can once again become the guiding light for humanity.
Have we reached the point where we not only take anti-Semitism for granted but don’t even question the illogical attitudes of those who hate us?I learned with shock, as we all did, of the attempt of four former convicts from New York, Muslim converts, who reportedly out of opposition to the U.S. war in Afghanistan, decided to blow up synagogues, and presumably Jews, in the Bronx. Does that make any sense?Surely we will come to learn more details in the days and weeks ahead, but the strange conflation of American foreign policy, Israel, militant Islam and anti-Semitism is as dangerous as it is puzzling. Yet we have been conditioned to accept the notion that virtually any controversial event in the world
somehow becomes linked to Israel, Zionists and Jews, in a negative way.
There are two general approaches to understand Jew hatred: the religious and the non-religious.
The religious approach is relatively simple. Our sages tell us that "it is a halacha that Eisav hates Yaakov." Not a general thing, not a custom, not something common, but a law, using the same word that one might use to discuss rules about kashrus or Shabbos. In other words, it's a given for us.
What's more, we recognize this hatred is irrational. The Midrash tells the story of Hadrian, y"sh, the Emperor of Rome who was walking down the street when a Jew greeted him. Hadrian, insulted by the idea of a Jew speaking to him, had the poor guy executed. The Jew's friend who witnessed this then tried to sneak by but when Hadrian caught him and discovered that he too was a Jew, he had him executed as well. Hadrian's advisors then asked about the obvious contradiction: you killed the first Jew for greeting you and the second Jew for not greeting you. Where's the logic in all that? Hadrian's answer was: Don't tell me how to deal with my enemies.
For the non-religious, understanding anti-Semitism has always been much more difficult. After all, it's easy for them to understand Jew hatred from a xenophobic perspective. Religious Jews in their strange garb, speaking a strange language, refusing to integrate into the surrounding culture, well that would make sense. Initially suspicious turns into eventual hatred.
But let us remember that the tragedy of the Holocaust did not start with religious Jews. Hitler, y"h, began with the non-religious and the charges against them were that they wore German garb, spoke German perfectly and were desperate to integrate into German society, thereby diluting the Aryan race's purity. What's more, looking at the Nazi literature of the time, like Der Streumer, it's easy to discover what the German mind thought of their Jews: underneath the assimilated Teutonic exterior was the same bearded and caftaned Jew that infested Poland.
Movies like The Pianist make this point perfectly. Adrien Brody and his family are assimilated Jews in Poland during the war. There are, in fact, only assimilated Jews in Poland if this film is to be believed. They are so assimilated that they have Polish names, participate in Polish culture and, other than a bris milah (hopefully) they betray no trace of Jewishness. Yet when the Nazis come it's off to the ghetto for them and the viewer is forced to ask: why? They're no different from the non-Jewish Poles. What was so special about them that warranted such harsh treatment?
As the holiday of Shavous draws close, we are given our answer. About 3329 years ago we stood at the foot of Har Sinai as God Allmight, in all his glory, revealed Himself to us and gave us His Torah. The Torah is the source of morality, God's foothold in a world that would rather not have Him in it so that true goodness can be expunged. We are the guardians of that foothold and the nations of world, consciously or not, know this. Jews observant of the Torah's law know this. By virute of the covenant, we cannot be separate from Him. Just as they hate Him, they hate us. A Jew cannot assimilate away from this hatred and attempts to try just worsen things. No one loves a God fearing Jew but a perceived turncoat is always worse.
There will always be Jew hatred until the final redemption (may it come speedily) and it will never appear rational to the initiated because a rational approach exclude God's importance in all that befalls us as a nation. May we merit that this is the last Shavuos in golus and that our Father in Heaven speedily return us to our land in front of the eyes of the nations of the world so that His Torah can once again become the guiding light for humanity.
Needless Antagonism
Since we're on the topic of mehadrin buses, my own personal opinion has been that Egged, being a company that serves the public, should run only unsegregated buses on any line that does not exclusively serve a religious neighbourhood where the service has been requested. The idea that some public bus lines will be altered to respect the sensitivites of a minority of the population (and possibly only a fraction of the folks withint that minority) is not sensible in a generally secular society. It's one thing to expect folks on the bus in deepest and dark Bene Beraq to sit separately even if they're not ultra-Chareidi, quite another on the cross-town express.
But I don't believe the solution is to antagonize the religious population demanding this special treatment:
Retired Supreme Court Justice Dalia Dorner suggested on Monday that secular passengers start riding haredi bus lines en masse to counter the gender segregation advocated by the ultra-Orthodox...
The public Egged bus company operates special "mehadrin" lines on which men and women are required to sit separately. Dorner insisted that Egged must provide an alternative for secular passengers who wish to ride these lines but are opposed to segregation.
In a conversation with Ynet, Dorner stressed that the proposed move was not meant as an act of defiance against the religious administration, but rather as means to exert pressure on the transportation minister and the Egged bus company to operate complimentary lines for the non-religious public.
"These arrangements should not be forced on the general population," she explained.
Dorner told students that young Jerusalemites should actively protest the segregated lines by using these buses more and disregarding the modesty codes practiced on them.
On one hand, comments like this from someone like Dorner aren't surprising. Israel's high court is an in-club in which the supreme justices choose their replacements without any input from the government or the public, both of which are considered too stupid and unenlightened to offer any meaningful input. Ever since Aharon Barak's tenure, the court has been a lodge of anti-Jewish intellectuals who think Israel's future is best secured by removing every trace of Jewishness from the country while encourages the Arabs in their cultural nationalistic ambitions. A Supreme Court justice making an anti-Chareidi remark is about as exceptional as Paris Hilton discussing her latest sexual conquest.
If Dorner wanted to be responsible, she could have made a simple suggestion: No segregated bus lines on Egged. If the Chareidim want them, they can create their own bus company and pay for it themselves. Anyone protesting such an idea could safely be dismissed as a fanatic.
But actively protesting and disregarding the modesty codes? Look, I have no interest in telling non-religious folks how to dress and act but I would reserve the right to be offended if someone I considered to be immodestly dressed walked up to me and yelled out "Hey! I'm purposefully doing this to offend you!"
Now, me being me I would probably just roll my eyes and turn away. However, it has been well established over the last several decades that this is not how the average Chareidi responds to confrontation. Dorner's irresonsible ideas are recommendations to create a riot.
Mind you, that's probably what she wants. Then she'll give an interview where she points out how primitive Chareidim are, rioting all over innocent seculars who went out of their way to bother them. And, oblivious to the commotion she helped create, she'll create another wave of bad feeling that does nothing to improve secular-religious tensions in Israeli society.
But I don't believe the solution is to antagonize the religious population demanding this special treatment:
Retired Supreme Court Justice Dalia Dorner suggested on Monday that secular passengers start riding haredi bus lines en masse to counter the gender segregation advocated by the ultra-Orthodox...
The public Egged bus company operates special "mehadrin" lines on which men and women are required to sit separately. Dorner insisted that Egged must provide an alternative for secular passengers who wish to ride these lines but are opposed to segregation.
In a conversation with Ynet, Dorner stressed that the proposed move was not meant as an act of defiance against the religious administration, but rather as means to exert pressure on the transportation minister and the Egged bus company to operate complimentary lines for the non-religious public.
"These arrangements should not be forced on the general population," she explained.
Dorner told students that young Jerusalemites should actively protest the segregated lines by using these buses more and disregarding the modesty codes practiced on them.
On one hand, comments like this from someone like Dorner aren't surprising. Israel's high court is an in-club in which the supreme justices choose their replacements without any input from the government or the public, both of which are considered too stupid and unenlightened to offer any meaningful input. Ever since Aharon Barak's tenure, the court has been a lodge of anti-Jewish intellectuals who think Israel's future is best secured by removing every trace of Jewishness from the country while encourages the Arabs in their cultural nationalistic ambitions. A Supreme Court justice making an anti-Chareidi remark is about as exceptional as Paris Hilton discussing her latest sexual conquest.
If Dorner wanted to be responsible, she could have made a simple suggestion: No segregated bus lines on Egged. If the Chareidim want them, they can create their own bus company and pay for it themselves. Anyone protesting such an idea could safely be dismissed as a fanatic.
But actively protesting and disregarding the modesty codes? Look, I have no interest in telling non-religious folks how to dress and act but I would reserve the right to be offended if someone I considered to be immodestly dressed walked up to me and yelled out "Hey! I'm purposefully doing this to offend you!"
Now, me being me I would probably just roll my eyes and turn away. However, it has been well established over the last several decades that this is not how the average Chareidi responds to confrontation. Dorner's irresonsible ideas are recommendations to create a riot.
Mind you, that's probably what she wants. Then she'll give an interview where she points out how primitive Chareidim are, rioting all over innocent seculars who went out of their way to bother them. And, oblivious to the commotion she helped create, she'll create another wave of bad feeling that does nothing to improve secular-religious tensions in Israeli society.
Monday, 25 May 2009
Get On the Bus
The Yeshiva World has an interesting piece on the latest push for mehadrin buses in Israel. Much to my shock, the piece was describing opponents of Taliban-styled buses in a positive light:
Tzipi Hotovely, who chairs the Knesset Committee on the Status of Women, is working against the mehadrin lines in Jerusalem. Ms. Avital Feldman, who is a leader in the battle against mehadrin lines, states the response supporting their opposition is encouraging. She explains there are a growing number of complaints from women who have fallen victim to abuse on buses on which passengers demand they sit in the rear.
Hundreds of supporters, opponents of the mehadrin lines, are expected to take part in a kenos in Hebrew University in Yerushalayim on Monday. Feldman other anti-mehadrin activists organized the event. A panel will address attendees. Panel members include former High Court Justice Dalia Dorner, Jerusalem Councilwoman Rachel Azariya, feminist Dr. Orit Kamir and Prof. Alon Harel, a member of the law faculty.
Organizers are however disappointed that Transportation Minister (Likud) Yisrael Katz has declined an invitation. They explain his office released a laconic explanation, that he receives too many invitations to attend all the functions.
Like much else that has come out of the Chareidi community lately, mehadrin buses are a useless distraction from the bigger social/religious problems they have to deal with. Even the term mehadrin bus is a misnomer. In an area such as kashrus where competing stringencies and leniencies abound, one can use the term mehadrin but in an area like seating on bus where there are no rules in the first place, it's irrelevant. A married couple sitting together on a public bus is not somehow less stringent about the laws of gender interaction than a couple that chooses to sit separately. A bus is not a shul, after all.
Last year, the purifiers in our community chose to take aim at those of us that use Pesach hotels to escape for the holidays. We were told that they were the biggest threat to Judaism today! (A guest to our community a couple of weeks later told me that the biggest threat to Judaism today are the rabbonim who think that Pesach hotels are the biggest threat to Judaism today) Now we are told that not only is separate seating on buses an indicator of higher religious commitment but that women who refuse to see things this way are legitimate targets of abuse.
I would like to see the Chareidi leadership deal with rampant pedophilia in their yeshivos, their poor educational standards and their rampant poverty-by-choice problem before deciding that Am Yisrael is ready to stand on the sacred heights that separate seated buses afford us.
Tzipi Hotovely, who chairs the Knesset Committee on the Status of Women, is working against the mehadrin lines in Jerusalem. Ms. Avital Feldman, who is a leader in the battle against mehadrin lines, states the response supporting their opposition is encouraging. She explains there are a growing number of complaints from women who have fallen victim to abuse on buses on which passengers demand they sit in the rear.
Hundreds of supporters, opponents of the mehadrin lines, are expected to take part in a kenos in Hebrew University in Yerushalayim on Monday. Feldman other anti-mehadrin activists organized the event. A panel will address attendees. Panel members include former High Court Justice Dalia Dorner, Jerusalem Councilwoman Rachel Azariya, feminist Dr. Orit Kamir and Prof. Alon Harel, a member of the law faculty.
Organizers are however disappointed that Transportation Minister (Likud) Yisrael Katz has declined an invitation. They explain his office released a laconic explanation, that he receives too many invitations to attend all the functions.
Like much else that has come out of the Chareidi community lately, mehadrin buses are a useless distraction from the bigger social/religious problems they have to deal with. Even the term mehadrin bus is a misnomer. In an area such as kashrus where competing stringencies and leniencies abound, one can use the term mehadrin but in an area like seating on bus where there are no rules in the first place, it's irrelevant. A married couple sitting together on a public bus is not somehow less stringent about the laws of gender interaction than a couple that chooses to sit separately. A bus is not a shul, after all.
Last year, the purifiers in our community chose to take aim at those of us that use Pesach hotels to escape for the holidays. We were told that they were the biggest threat to Judaism today! (A guest to our community a couple of weeks later told me that the biggest threat to Judaism today are the rabbonim who think that Pesach hotels are the biggest threat to Judaism today) Now we are told that not only is separate seating on buses an indicator of higher religious commitment but that women who refuse to see things this way are legitimate targets of abuse.
I would like to see the Chareidi leadership deal with rampant pedophilia in their yeshivos, their poor educational standards and their rampant poverty-by-choice problem before deciding that Am Yisrael is ready to stand on the sacred heights that separate seated buses afford us.
Dairy Limitations
All right, I know that my female readers (all one of you, it seems) will be upset with what I'm going to say but being a thick-headed male (the best mea culpa you're going to get) I'm going to say it anyways:
Shavuos is not a dairy holiday.
Now let me explain.
Yes, one eats dairy on Shavuos. The well-known custom is based on the idea that after the Jews received the Torah which contained, amongst other things, the requirement to eat meat slaughted by shechitah they returned to their tents and realized all the meat they had was now trief. So dairy was the only option for their first post-matan Torah meal, hence the custom to eat dairy on Shavuos.sons
Shavuos is not a dairy holiday.
Now let me explain.
Yes, one eats dairy on Shavuos. The well-known custom is based on the idea that after the Jews received the Torah which contained, amongst other things, the requirement to eat meat slaughted by shechitah they returned to their tents and realized all the meat they had was now trief. So dairy was the only option for their first post-matan Torah meal, hence the custom to eat dairy on Shavuos.sons
And yes I know it's not such an old custom and that other reasons are given by the poskim. However, I would like to point out that I now know many people who think that eating dairy on Shavuos means making all the Yom Tov meals milchig and, in my capacity as the Chief Rabbi of Stoney Creek, I would like to rail against this misunderstanding.
If one really wants to observe the custom of eating dairy on Shavuos as it is properly understood, here's what one does. After shul on the morning of the first day one returns home, makes kiddush and then makes a motzi and serves milchig appetizers. One must be very careful to use only one of the two breads at this point. Then one clears the dairy equipment, sets the table for meat and puts out all the meat stuff and after a 1/2 hour break or so the meal is continued with fleishigs using the second loaf of bread.
If this is hard for some folks, then making the first day's lunch milchig is fine but folks, the rest really should be meat. It's still Yom Tov after all.
How To Make a JCC Irrelevant
As usual, I'll state my bias up front. The small town I grew up in had a nearly useless JCC. They had a poorly stocked gym complete with pictures of Jewish sports teams that had competed in city tournaments (and won a couple) in the 1950's. The meeting room had 1960's shag carpet and a smell from the fake wood walls. We knew there was a staff working there but we never actually saw them. In my teens, they built a new JCC. At first the plans they posted called for a health club with a pool (!), along lots of meeting and activity rooms. Unfortunately cost containment changed all that. We got the meeting rooms and a social hall but the rest of the building turned into old age apartments that were almost all rented to non-Jews so we had the pleasure of the tenants having X-mas parties in the JCC every December.
The JCC where I live now isn't much better. For some odd reason, it's tucked off on a side road nowhere near anywhere that Jewish, religious or non-religious live. It's essentially a giant fitness club with meeting rooms that host the occasional "cultural" event but not much else.
So if you ask me if I ascribe any importance to the concept of a JCC, I don't because I've never been around one that actually plays any meaningful role for its community.
Apparently in some bigger Jewish centres, this is the case. The JCC serves a role for both the religious and non-religious population which, as one might expect, gives rise to complications that don't often happen on a shul level. After all, all the frum people go to the Orthodox shul. The non-frum folks go elsewhere. No conflict there, but not so at the JCC.
And conflict is what appears to be happening in Baltimore, a larger Jewish centre in the United States (or so I'm told). Non-religious forces in the community there wish to have the place open on Shabbos. The observant community opposes this for obvious reasons and recently held a rally not so much to protest the JCC's decision but rather to positively promote the idea of Shabbos.
For the non-religious, it seems the protests of their observant brethren is a mystery. Years of living radically different lifestyles in different parts of town have taken a toll on the community's sense of unity:
“We’re two separate communities,” Rabbi Steven M. Fink, spiritual leader of Temple Oheb Shalom, said on Monday. “We talk about Jewish unity, but the only thing that unites us is anti-Semitism.
“We both read from the Torah, we both love Shabbat, we just do so in radically different ways,” Rabbi Fink added. “They would never invite us to a rally like this one because it would validate us as rabbis.”
So let me ask some questions. First, why would the JCC want to open on Saturday afternoons? Clearly not for Jewish reasons. After all, the main Jewish worship, especially amongst the heterdox, is in the morning. Furthermore, JCC's generally don't serve as centres of worship to avoid conflicting with the community's synagogues. Although I don't live in Baltimore, I'll willing to bet that the JCC is opening to allow members to access its - wait for it - health club.
But if that's the case, doesn't that make the JCC even more irrelevant, and not just to the Orthodox population of Baltimore?
Again, despite not knowing Baltimore I'm willing to bet there are lots of health and fitness clubs there. I'm also willing to be that a good number are probably as nice as the one at the JCC and might even offer reasonable prices. Many might be closer to the homes of JCC members and therefore more convenient to attend. If that's the case, why would someone choose the JCC to work out in? Because it makes him feel more Jewish? But what does it say about someone's Jewish identity that he chooses to be mechalel Shabbos of all places at the JCC?!
In the end, a Jewish institution that chooses to minimize its Jewishness, whether by being open on Shabbos or choosing to not be kosher decreases its relevance to the community it serves. The Orthodox Jews will choose to minimize their support and the non-religious will eventually drift away to similar non-Jewish venues after seeing that there is no difference between "them" and "us".
In the end, any Jew who feels so strongly about working out on Shabbos probably doesn't have a problem with driving to a private club he's paid membership at. Leave the JCC out of this.
The JCC where I live now isn't much better. For some odd reason, it's tucked off on a side road nowhere near anywhere that Jewish, religious or non-religious live. It's essentially a giant fitness club with meeting rooms that host the occasional "cultural" event but not much else.
So if you ask me if I ascribe any importance to the concept of a JCC, I don't because I've never been around one that actually plays any meaningful role for its community.
Apparently in some bigger Jewish centres, this is the case. The JCC serves a role for both the religious and non-religious population which, as one might expect, gives rise to complications that don't often happen on a shul level. After all, all the frum people go to the Orthodox shul. The non-frum folks go elsewhere. No conflict there, but not so at the JCC.
And conflict is what appears to be happening in Baltimore, a larger Jewish centre in the United States (or so I'm told). Non-religious forces in the community there wish to have the place open on Shabbos. The observant community opposes this for obvious reasons and recently held a rally not so much to protest the JCC's decision but rather to positively promote the idea of Shabbos.
For the non-religious, it seems the protests of their observant brethren is a mystery. Years of living radically different lifestyles in different parts of town have taken a toll on the community's sense of unity:
“We’re two separate communities,” Rabbi Steven M. Fink, spiritual leader of Temple Oheb Shalom, said on Monday. “We talk about Jewish unity, but the only thing that unites us is anti-Semitism.
“We both read from the Torah, we both love Shabbat, we just do so in radically different ways,” Rabbi Fink added. “They would never invite us to a rally like this one because it would validate us as rabbis.”
So let me ask some questions. First, why would the JCC want to open on Saturday afternoons? Clearly not for Jewish reasons. After all, the main Jewish worship, especially amongst the heterdox, is in the morning. Furthermore, JCC's generally don't serve as centres of worship to avoid conflicting with the community's synagogues. Although I don't live in Baltimore, I'll willing to bet that the JCC is opening to allow members to access its - wait for it - health club.
But if that's the case, doesn't that make the JCC even more irrelevant, and not just to the Orthodox population of Baltimore?
Again, despite not knowing Baltimore I'm willing to bet there are lots of health and fitness clubs there. I'm also willing to be that a good number are probably as nice as the one at the JCC and might even offer reasonable prices. Many might be closer to the homes of JCC members and therefore more convenient to attend. If that's the case, why would someone choose the JCC to work out in? Because it makes him feel more Jewish? But what does it say about someone's Jewish identity that he chooses to be mechalel Shabbos of all places at the JCC?!
In the end, a Jewish institution that chooses to minimize its Jewishness, whether by being open on Shabbos or choosing to not be kosher decreases its relevance to the community it serves. The Orthodox Jews will choose to minimize their support and the non-religious will eventually drift away to similar non-Jewish venues after seeing that there is no difference between "them" and "us".
In the end, any Jew who feels so strongly about working out on Shabbos probably doesn't have a problem with driving to a private club he's paid membership at. Leave the JCC out of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)